NZ Foreign Minister Murray McCully told the NZ Fiji Business Council on Friday that the travel ban on Fiji government and military personnel and their families (but not trade or economic sanctions) is needed, and is clearly effective as seen in "the level of vitriol he has heard expressed against those sanctions.'
Surely, effectiveness would be better measured by a more conciliatory attitude from the Fiji government, by the lifting of the emergency regulations, and more urgent steps taken towards elections. But none of these indicators of effectiveness has occurred. National's rigid ideological stance, inherited paradoxically from its Labour predecessor, has been demonstratively ineffective. And many respected voices have said so, over and over again. The only tangible outcome has been counter-productive: Fiji has been deprived of the skills, experience and advice of people who may otherwise have been senior civil servants.
Read more...
The Minister said he is periodically called on to ease the sanctions on Fiji but has not done so because the small, vulnerable Pacific nations would be easier targets for dictators-in-waiting, and because NZ and other small nations need strong international organizations and clear rules of principled behaviour. In other words, Fiji is to be used as an example and a warning to its Pacific neighbours! He then rolled out the legalists' litany (sacked judges, abrogated constitution, personal freedoms, and intimidation of church leaders and the media) that, if ignored, would make the world "a significantly more challenging place to live in." There are other interpretations of these events, Minister. And I really can't imagine Fiji (or NZ for that matter) could make the world do anything.
Minister McCully says "we cannot force Fiji to embrace democracy." But isn't this exactly what our policies aim to do: force a return to the pre-Coup Qarase democracy-in-name-only type of democracy, that can only be brought about by a failed coup, economic collapse, isolation, intervention, rebellion or civil war? Yes, all this is possible, Minister.
But wouldn't it be better for New Zealand to help Bainimarama move towards a more genuine democracy, one that treats all citizens fairly, and places less weight on race? What is done is done, and cannot be undone. Bainimarama has made mistakes, and some mistakes were forced on him. What we now need is a reassessment of our country's policies and goals, and fresh dialogue with the de facto Fiji government. Maybe then we can influence events and outcomes in a positive way.
Meanwhile, would some kind reader draw the Minister's (and his advisers') attention to former Fiji diplomat Peter Thomson's recent address to the Australia Fiji Business Council. Click here for the link, or use the envelope facility noted below.
--Based on Fijian News from Radio New Zealand.
P.S. If you know anyone who could influence NZ's policies, please click the envelope icon at the end of the Thomson address to email the address to them. http://crosbiew.blogspot.com/2009/09/o-folly-of-canberras-stand-against-fiji_15.html
4 comments:
Why don't more people make comments on this blog?
I find that c. walsh gives bainimarama too much credit. he is there illegally. he has no legal voice of the people. people can't even write a letter to the editor.
why would they risk raise their voice in public? Just to get a visit form the army/police to enforce the PER.
also mr. walsh is an acedemic, so i could not possibly "compete" or respond as effectively .
I have been following bainimara's actions since way before the coup, and have always found him to be a bully through & through. he has no right to be there & i will not entertain the thought of other world governments having to deal with this usurper as representing the Fijian people.
Mr. Walsh will not change my mind about this subject. I do not endorse anything bainimarama does or says.
'Effective'....effectively what? Effectively undermining the years of hardwork that some citizens have put in attempting to combat corruption and poor and improper governance. The travel bans serve to harden attitudes and they work against capacity-building. Effectively, they point Fiji in the direction of flailing governance and sustained corruption. Hardly smart - unless a more sinister outcome is sought? The deliverance of a nation and its citizens to thugs? The creation of an Afghan-like immersion in survival of only the fittest in a country designed for Macho Man? For surely, in Mr McCully's intended landscape there is no place whatsoever for the weakest nor for women? Those who "hold up half-the-sky". Oilei, Oilei - you will have much to answer for!
While NZ and Australia could be more productive in their diplomacy with Fiji, I have to agree with the travel bans. I don't understand how they negatively affect the work of Fiji's military government. Economic sanctions are different because they often affect regular people.
I am not wholly unsympathetic to Bainimarama and his cause, but I don't think travel bans are too much of a price to pay for taking over a country illegally. He does get out from time to time, doesn't he?
That being said, some back channel negotiations would be of order between the three countries.
@ John
'More productive with their diplomacy': that is a gross distortion and understatement designed to obfuscate the real matter at hand: which is control. At no time in the past ten years or so, has one noted that either Australia or New Zealand had people on the ground in Fiji who were equipped to deal with a situation-in-the-making. They skimmed the surface of things and they were completely inadequate to the task at hand. This is not a Monsieur Hulot's Holiday location. This is 'the hard yards' and it always has been. Why so glibly assume that 'elections will suffice' and make things different? Is this not folly and a fallacy of the highest order? No March of Folly was detected back in March 2001 when Fiji was propelled into elections which were a supreme error of good judgement and which were cynically 'bought'. But, politicians buy elections all over the place, do they not? That is why they are anathema now.
Post a Comment